9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 1982, 7th Oct., 1982, 6th Jan., 1983, 26th Feb., 1983 and 11th May, 1983. Thus, the hearing were adjourned several times at the request of the Departmental Representative and the request was made mostly on the gourd that the records could not be received. Even this time, the same request is made and the request for adjournment has been rejected. 2. The ld. representative of the assess Shri Gulati argued at length that no opportunity was given to the assessee to explain the allege loose papers and diaries, which are sated by the Department to have been detected and seized from the premises of the appellant in the course of the search and seizure. It was emphasised by the ld. representative that only routine notices under s. 142 (1) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity. The assessee should have been allowed some time to prove his case, which was not done. the ld. representative has relied, in this connection, upon the decision of ld. Judges of Supreme Court in (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT). In this case, the ld. Judges of Supreme Court held as under: "An assessment made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the Departmental Representative and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assessee wants to produce in support of the case constitutes violation of the fundamental rules of justice and calls for interference by the Court." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that these were already part of the record of the ITO. In the connection, this ld. representative of the assessee relied upon the decision of ld. Judges of the Supreme Court at (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) (Omar Salary Mohamed Sait vs. CIT). In this decision, the ld. Judges of Supreme Court had set aside the order of Appellant Tribunal and remanded the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law on the ground that the Tribunal had rejected the evidence gathered by the ITO after the passing of the assessment order, but before the appeal, which was pending, was decided. It is clear from this decision that the evidences, which have been gathered, though after the assessment order was passed, but which are already there on the records, should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
